My old boss actually had a word for reproducing the same duplicate content with specific, templated variations (e.g., changing the location information): "Mad Libbed" content. I always assumed that sort of thing was probably filtered, so it's nice to receive some confirmation.

Oh, and I plan to quote you on, "Unique is not good enough", Rand. Pure gold. :) December 11, 2009

I'm starting to see a trend when it comes to linking that the higher the concentration of link juice, be it from the same domain, using the same anchor text, all flowing to the same page, etc., the more the returns are diminished. I imagine that's because incredibly high concentrations don't fit the model of organic linking that search engines have come to observe. December 04, 2009

On the last note about branded versus non-branded traffic, I find that's a useful way to segment search analysis all by itself. If you can separate out the two, you can clearly see trends in the growth of your brand versus the growth of your search relevance. Of course, this assumes you're 100% relevant for brand-related searches to begin with, and that your brand is distinguishable from your important keywords. Assuming you meet those two criteria, though, they're pretty handy metrics. November 28, 2009

I agree with the point that the Contact page can potentially have useful links that should be considered. However, there's an added benefit to nofollowing a contact page. Namely, removing it from searches can make it less likely to be spammed.

Granted, that's a non-search-related benefit, and there are better ways to prevent spam, but I'd say it's worth considering. May 01, 2009

"...SEO has its own insiduous, stereotyped marketing claims that legitimate providers avoid like the plague."

This was a regular issue between salespeople and analysts at the SEO company I used to work at. The salespeople wanted to use the "guarantee" line to write business and earn commission, whereas the analysts were vehemently against it for all of the reasons you cite. The real point is, they're empty promises that might get someone in the door, but will ultimately blow up in your face.

I actually disagree with this statement. The metric should be conversions, whether or not the campaign involves on-site conversion optimization. Whether the client gets 10,000 visitors or 1,000 is ultimately irrelevant; what's important is that they get 1,000 sales instead of 100, and traffic quality plays a huge factor in that. Sure, once you've got the quality down, you want more quantity, but ROI should always be the most important metric in any marketing campaign.

By the way, in case you haven't tested it on the user side yet, the site works just fine in Google Chrome. ;) September 03, 2008

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think Google should start indexing brains. That way, I can archive and search important thoughts the same way I do email and search history. ;) August 27, 2008

I think there's a lot of hidden value in catering to your users as much as possible. Make things convenient for them, interact on their terms, and they will have a more positive experience with your brand. Sure, they may not be getting as many ad impressions in the short term, but through regular, positive interaction with your brand in a familiar setting, they will remain loyal, enthusiastic users over the long term.

In that vein, there are plenty of ways to drive users back to your website even while providing full content through email. For example, Facebook could provide several calls to action, like, "Click here to delete this message," or, "See what else FRIEND'S NAME has been up to." Give users all that they want, and then some; all it takes is a little creativity. August 22, 2008

The problem you may be running into is one of authority. SEOmoz, for obvious reasons, commands a great deal of authority for SEO-related search phrases. The domain as a whole has such relevance that one instance of keyword stuffing won't show up on the radar. Heck, if a site is big and relevant enough, the big G will simply disregard black hat tactics rather than deny the site from their users, which may be happening here. August 20, 2008

MSN catches a lot of criticism that it doesn't deserve along with a lot that it does. Harsh though it may sound, the fact that they're so far behind Google with their webmaster tools falls in the latter category.

To me, there's nothing particularly exciting about a copy of technology that Google's had in place for years. If Mr. Balmer is really serious about competing, the new Live webmaster tools updates aren't just long overdue; they're a far cry from the innovation MSN needs to be demonstrating.

MSN talks a big game about leading in search, but I don't see it happening if they keep lagging behind like this. August 08, 2008

Amen, Rand. I know more than a few people in my life that fall pretty low on your "getting it" spectrum. Often, for some topics, it feels like I'm the only one who does get it. Of course, I suppose that's why they hired me; because I'm an expert in certain things that they know little or nothing about, but need.

Out of curiosity, do you have any advice for how to convince the people in the "Doesn't Get It" or "Causes Others to Lose It" categories that they, in fact, don't get it when they think they do, and to get with the program? That would be incredibly helpful. August 07, 2008

Sure, links can cost you a bit of juice, and visitors might leave never to return, but it's more worthwhile to look at it as an investment than a cost. For all of the reasons that you mention, Rand, you stand to reap much greater rewards than a fractional loss of link juice. Avoiding outbound links and hoarding link juice, on the other hand, is akin to stuffing your money in a mattress. August 05, 2008

Honestly, the advantages of an XML sitemap far outweigh the potential disadvantages in my mind. Rand is, as always, correct when he says it could obfuscate link architecture problems. Then again, what sort of architecture are you using to doubt that your pages might be crawlable? If you're using best practices in your links and menus, this should rarely be a problem.

Also, if your site's already out there and your competitor has an analyst smart enough to plumb your XML sitemap for intelligence, you can bet that he won't need it to pick you apart.

Likewise, any site with enough content to require an auto-generated sitemap is likely functioning off of some sort of CMS, making it an easy process for any competent developer. August 01, 2008

Great comparison, Rand. I was actually jotting down the note that heavily-advertised linkbait pages tend to do poorly before you jumped into it.

It's also worth adding that you can follow a subscribership model. Most of the time, calls to action to gain subscribers are acceptable on social media websites. You put your linkbait out there, generate as many subscribers as possible from it, then sell your subscribers on your commercial service. Granted, I've heard that social media traffic doesn't convert to subscription very frequently, but it's definitely a tactic worth trying if you're trying to leverage linkbait for your landing pages. August 01, 2008

As I've mentioned on my blog, "SEO is 5% what you do and 95% what you don't do." As far as I'm concerned, there's no way to be a white hat without a thorough knowledge of how black hats operate. You need to understand the illegitimate tactics so you know how to avoid them and how they're likely to impact the future of the algorithms.

Not to put too fine a point on it, if the black hats don't like it, tell them to STFU back. The web community at large has just as much right to know this as they do.

As far as exposing specific websites goes, there is a simple key to maintaining a good reputation, in search or otherwise: Don't do anything to deserve a bad reputation. If people don't like having their spammy tactics outed, they shouldn't have been using them in the first place.

And, as far as the search engines go, they should care more about spammers than those who study them. In my eyes, SEOmoz does nothing but promote the best side of SEO. Every search engine should give gracious thanks that resources like this exist to properly educate people. I'm sure you've turned more people away from black hat than toward it.

Censorship is a bad thing. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away. Do not omit useful information from SEOmoz about any topic of importance to your community, including black hat SEO. July 28, 2008

I started lurking SEOmoz posts three years ago when I landed my first SEO position. My main reason for lurking is that I prefer aggregation. Google Reader tells me that I've read 2,285 items in the past 30 days (for an average of 76 posts per day). About once or twice a day, I might click through on a post and comment, but it's the exception to my engagement, not the norm.

Considering I'm not a comment fiend, it shouldn't surprise you that I meet most barriers to commenting as brick walls. I have little enough motivation to share my comments as it is; throw extra steps in front of me and my interest dwindles to nothing. If memory serves, this has been the case several times on SEOmoz.

To be honest, I only commented on this post because I'm already participating in the Haiku contest, so that barrier is nonexistent. Also, I wasn't aware of the MozPoints system until today. It's definitely a great way to promote registration (especially among SEO-minded individuals), but I'd say my prior lack of awareness is evidence that it might not be visible enough to casual readers.